Hashimoto launched the crusade to eradicate tattoos from the public sector, saying that the local government would block the promotion and advancement of any city employee who declined to respond to the survey asking them if they have tattoos.

right-wing and bat shit crazy. I don't like tattoos either but that's just a tad ridiculous

That's nuts. I think there is a real trend today toward tattoos among the younger generation.

I don't have any personally, but my younger girlfriend has like 9 of them (as does my younger sister). I don't care for them, but they're not hurting anyone. Times change and they just don't view them like society used to. I think the same thing is happening in Japan with the younger generation and this is just the intolerance and stubborn conservatism of the older generation judging the younger generation by their old (and perhaps outdated) standards.

I think tattoos do imply a sense of immaturity, irresponsibility, superficiality, lack of foresight, etc (and that's my personal opinion)... but I certainly don't think they are remotely synonymous with crime and outlaws anymore, like they were in decades past.

Once again, I feel compelled to rant about why its NOT HARD to get a correctly done tattoo in Japanese!!! Does the artist have a computer in their tattoo studio? If not, bring a laptop or smart phone, or have them practice a bit at home before they do the tattoo.

Step 2) Copy and paste the characters here http://kakijun.main.jp/ to see a stroke order animation of the character in an artistic brush font..

Tadaaaaah!!!

edit for further ranting

And there are probably resources just as nice out there for Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean, or Arabic, or whatever other wordly scripts you want written on your person. These are not obscure tribal languages. We have an internet! :O

but I certainly don't think they are remotely synonymous with crime and outlaws anymore, like they were in decades past.

True, but as you know tattoos are still strongly associated with Yakuza even today. Which means that having a tattoo would be seen as dirty an uncivilized by many people in Japan. It even says in the article that some people believe Hashimoto's outrage is linked to his relations having been outlaws themselves

I think tattoos do imply a sense of immaturity, irresponsibility, superficiality, lack of foresight, etc (and that's my personal opinion)... but I certainly don't think they are remotely synonymous with crime and outlaws anymore, like they were in decades past.

I disagree. A tattoo is an inarticulate label that is meant to reduce a sentient concept or an identity into a mute but reflexive, reactionist symbol. It has never or will never have another purpose. The current attraction is to emulate gangster and skinhead custom, and to display a superficial antisocietal rebellion of a nature not progressive or individuating or liberating, but devolutionary, regimental and, dare I say fascistic and brutal. The custom of tattooing has the unrelenting history of branding for exclusion or imprisonment (the enumeration of Jews in Nazi concentration camps) , or to signify a status or membership in an anti-civil subgroup: warriors, gangsters, convicts, and the like. I'm not in any way conservative; on the contrary, it is my liberalism that objects to this debasing fad. I've said it before, tattoos always have represented and still belie a dehumanistic and therefore ugly sentiment.

As for Hashimoto, the people surveyed were civil employees, many of them teachers, hired to instill human refinement in their students, a purpose antithetical to their tattoos. Thsoe teachers, if they are as intelligent and capable as teacher ought to be, should be able to assert their own individual personalities and qualities without resorting to someone else's marks on their skin. And as for privacy, the tattoos themselves not only are meant to be publicly displayed, but symbolic denials of the concepts of individuality or privacy. There was no regard to privacy or personal integrity when these people subjected themselves to the tattooer's needle. They shouldn't demand it from the employer or the society they are entrusted to cultivate and represent now. Let them work in a sphere that condones such personal debasement, if that's the environment they choose. Of course, they may be forced to sacrifice a finger if they step out of line, but they've already voluntarily mutilated themselves anyway.

I think tattoos do imply a sense of immaturity, irresponsibility, superficiality, lack of foresight, etc (and that's my personal opinion)... but I certainly don't think they are remotely synonymous with crime and outlaws anymore, like they were in decades past.

I disagree. A tattoo is an inarticulate label that is meant to reduce a sentient concept or an identity into a mute but reflexive, reactionist symbol. It has never or will never have another purpose. The current attraction is to emulate gangster and skinhead custom, and to display a superficial antisocietal rebellion of a nature not progressive or individuating or liberating, but devolutionary, regimental and, dare I say fascistic and brutal. The custom of tattooing has the unrelenting history of branding for exclusion or imprisonment (the enumeration of Jews in Nazi concentration camps) , or to signify a status or membership in an anti-civil subgroup: warriors, gangsters, convicts, and the like. I'm not in any way conservative; on the contrary, it is my liberalism that objects to this debasing fad. I've said it before, tattoos always have represented and still belie a dehumanistic and therefore ugly sentiment.

As for Hashimoto, the people surveyed were civil employees, many of them teachers, hired to instill human refinement in their students, a purpose antithetical to their tattoos. Thsoe teachers, if they are as intelligent and capable as teacher ought to be, should be able to assert their own individual personalities and qualities without resorting to someone else's marks on their skin. And as for privacy, the tattoos themselves not only are meant to be publicly displayed, but symbolic denials of the concepts of individuality or privacy. There was no regard to privacy or personal integrity when these people subjected themselves to the tattooer's needle. They shouldn't demand it from the employer or the society they are entrusted to cultivate and represent now. Let them work in a sphere that condones such personal debasement, if that's the environment they choose. Of course, they may be forced to sacrifice a finger if they step out of line, but they've already voluntarily mutilated themselves anyway.

Are you for real? How is it not private what may be found on your buttocks? Although I somewhat agree with the character judgements phreadom made, I don't see how their human refinement on those more subtle levels should affect their ability to teach a freaking math class. The fact of the matter is, it won't.

Are you for real? How is it not private what may be found on your buttocks? Although I somewhat agree with the character judgements phreadom made, I don't see how their human refinement on those more subtle levels should affect their ability to teach a freaking math class. The fact of the matter is, it won't.

I assure you, I am for real. More real than any ink could be. Are you a troll It has been suggested before)? If one allows another to draw on their buttocks, they obviously hold their privacy and personal integrity in low regard; hence the popular term "tramp stamp" I recall somebody using. Mathematics may not be a high-minded pursuit; in fact, unlike Plato, I consider it to be a rather mundane discipline. But it is all about discipline, and someone who lacks the discipline over their caprices to ignore permanent, or at least semi-permanent consequences, would not be a good mathematics teacher. Add to that the general presence of a teacher to a student, as a general model of conduct, and someone who exhibits such lack of foresight (again, applied before), is a poor role model. It is a person's right to portray oneself as a brute or a clown or a fool; it is the community's right to regard them as such. I applaud Hashimoto; and, frankly, I find the girl in the photo above repulsive. Real enough for you?

It's just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm always willing to listen to the logical basis of new ideas, so please continue!

Hektor6766 wrote:If one allows another to draw on their buttocks, they obviously hold their privacy... in low regard;

What's done between the tattoo-er and the tattoo-ee is done in confidence, so I fail to see how it's a given that their privacy is held in low regard. Again, I agree that on more subtle levels (the "personal integrity" that you mentioned) the decision is definitely questionable, but there's nothing to suggest here that privacy isn't considered.

Mathematics may not be a high-minded pursuit; in fact, unlike Plato, I consider it to be a rather mundane discipline. But it is all about discipline, and someone who lacks the discipline over their caprices to ignore permanent, or at least semi-permanent consequences, would not be a good mathematics teacher.

Add to that the general presence of a teacher to a student, as a general model of conduct, and someone who exhibits such lack of foresight (again, applied before), is a poor role model. It is a person's right to portray oneself as a brute or a clown or a fool; it is the community's right to regard them as such.

Let's be clear here. There is discipline over others, and then there's discipline over yourself, for private decision that don't effect others. They are completely different animals. Regardless, a tattoo is not a matter of either such disciplines if it's something that they thought only as a good, healthy thing for themselves. They are not "giving in" to the desire, they're choosing. Such held beliefs will cheapen my view of them, doubtlessly so, but I still don't see how it should effect the classroom in the significant ways you are implying.

One should expect confidence with their doctor, confessor if their moral system requires one, or lawyer, but not with the guy who sells them beer and cigarettes without regard to their best interests. I put the tattoo "artist" in the latter category. More, the very purpose of a tattoo is for display, an inarticulate declaration of self. As self-advertisement, it is antithetical to confidentiality. It makes as much sense as putting a bumpersticker in your glove-box. If it's something you don't want strangers to see, it makes no sense that you would want to show it to intimate friends whose opinions you would hold in higher value. And what could it tell them about you that you wouldn't rather declare or demonstrate for yourself?

Secondly, Discipline over others without discipline over oneself is pomposity and hypocrisy, not very effective leadership or educational techniques.

Finally, the above woman's physique and features look regular and unobjectionable, but the barbarity and crudeness of her tattooed personal statement conveys a hideous inner being. A healthy human form and mind are beautiful, and to mark them is, to me, like tagging the Taj Mahal. It only defaces.

Hektor6766 wrote:One should expect confidence with their doctor, confessor if their moral system requires one, or lawyer, but not with the guy who sells them beer and cigarettes without regard to their best interests. I put the tattoo "artist" in the latter category. More, the very purpose of a tattoo is for display, an inarticulate declaration of self. As self-advertisement, it is antithetical to confidentiality. It makes as much sense as putting a bumpersticker in your glove-box. If it's something you don't want strangers to see, it makes no sense that you would want to show it to intimate friends whose opinions you would hold in higher value. And what could it tell them about you that you wouldn't rather declare or demonstrate for yourself?

I agree completely. This is why it makes zero sense. I remember asking a friend, a girl, what a meaning behind her calf tattoo was and she said it was private. wtf?! If it's meaning is private then wtf is the point of having it as a tattoo?

But yet, even still this goes to show that they can consider privacy based on location and whether or not the meaning will remain secret. Their rationale of it's existential integrity is dubious because of it, but the decision is there.

Secondly, Discipline over others without discipline over oneself is pomposity and hypocrisy, not very effective leadership or educational techniques.

Say a teacher tells a student that you should always consult at least one person you trust before making a major life-changing decision. Said teacher doesn't do it himself for his own life. I don't believe that makes the statement any less true. As another more relevant example, the tattoo a teacher had could have been an impulsive mistake he made when he was young (I would never have but anyway) that he regrets. In life they say you learn from your mistakes. From this regret he can give advice to students about not doing the same (being overly impulsive) thus effectively making him a potentially even better teacher than he would've been...

Finally, the above woman's physique and features look regular and unobjectionable, but the barbarity and crudeness of her tattooed personal statement conveys a hideous inner being. A healthy human form and mind are beautiful, and to mark them is, to me, like tagging the Taj Mahal. It only defaces.

Taj Mahal was built by slaves. Deface it and I will grin. Getting a tattoo doesn't make one a better or worse human being, but it is a choice and part of the choice is whether one wants to deal with certain stigmas. /thread

Okay, if someone scribbled on the Mona Lisa then. Da Vinci did that for commission. Or take your own favorite piece of artwork and imagine if somebody marked it up (though even a slave might not want to see the product of their labors ruined). This may sound old school, but scars and blemishes used to be things that healthy, well-adjusted people avoided. Cutting or burning yourself with matches or cigarettes doesn't make you a bad person either, just someone who could use some help with the toys in the attic.

I'll go with your use of the term stigma. From the dictionary: 1.A distinguishing mark burned or cut into a slave or criminal; 2.Something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, group, etc.; mark of disgrace or reproach; 3.A mark, sign, etc. indicating that something is not considered normal. To each their own, but thralldom and ignominy are for good reasons unattractive to me. I prefer people who mark with their being to those who have their beings marked.

As for historical context, symbols, including tattoos, need it. Without it a swastika is just a funny-looking cross (actually its deeper history is better, but if you have it tattooed, or fly it in front of your house, be prepared for some dirty looks). And despite their current popularity, outlaws, gangsters, wannabes and inmates (and possibly future dictatorial regimes) will continue to use tattoos.

As for teaching, I've never been a fan of bringing perpetrators in for negative education. Its "do as I say, not as I've done." Aforementioned hypocrisy. People often mistakenly believe something has be experienced before consequences can be known; that the only experts are the blunderers. They don't understand that wiser people may chose not to commit the crime or the error in the first place out of knowledge and the personal integrity to resolve that they will not commit them. Classrooms are for wisdom before regret.

I have a story about a girl with a tattoo, but I'll spare you. Suffice to say that tattoo shut things down cold. They just belong on guys who operate rides at county fairs or who man the front desks at cheap motels, not on beautiful women. As romantically appealing as a mouthful of rotting teeth.

Anyway, I was just reading in Yomiuri about a new trend in Tokyo this summer: printed designs on stockings. Now Japanese women can look like they've been tattooed with hosiery. At least it's not permanent.

Do people not know what trolling is anymore? Too often I see it hastily applied to people somebody disagrees with and not an obvious attempt at laying flamebait. To be honest, your post, Hektor, was much closer to flamebait than anything Shiroisan has said in this thread by being, frankly, insulting. And I'm not even a fan of tattoos!

Many people get many different kinds of tattoos for many different reasons. In my opinion, trying to lump them all into one group, let alone saying things about that group, is nothing short of absurd.

Apparently, you see the challenge of the sincerity of my post or of my connection with reality as not insulting, or flamebaiting. That is your opinion. My opinion differs. For rebuttal, I borrowed a previous characterization. That was my mistake.

People who choose (I have already separated those who were tattooed under duress) to be tattooed fall into one category: People who choose to be tattooed. They can have myriad "reasons" for having that done to them. People commit various acts for various reasons, well or ill-considered. It is not my office to penalize others' acts, but it is not my obligation to support those I consider folly. And I defend my position with history and circumstance; others may defend theirs with conjecture or even aspersions, to whatever success that achieves. I am now quitting this overworked topic.

Well it's for certain a long for any shibboleth.
It looks like Chinese johnspeak, if that's of any use.
It's not Chinese those are furigana to the side. So it could be mixed Chinese Japanese.
But iod it's correct Chinese wht would their be such discretion.
Also may I ask when exactly is July?